知识概念的实用入侵

On Pragmatic Encroachment

实用入侵论者主张知识概念在本质上包含实用因数,因而跟传统纯净主义的知识概念正相对立。支持实用入侵的证据主要有三个:一是由思想实验逼出的认知直觉;二是援引知识对行为进行批判或捍卫的语言习惯;三是将知识当作可靠理由的事实。由此而发展出支持实用入侵的逻辑论证,该论证的核心是"知识-辩护"联系论题。对此论证有三个著名反驳,即高风险反驳、大弃赌反驳和本末倒置反驳。虽然支持者和反驳者的讨论还在继续,但笔者认为实用入侵论者误解了证据的范围,因而从正确的直觉得出了错误的推理,纯净主义者的看法可能更符合事实。

Protagonists of pragmatic encroachment claim that the concept of knowledge entails pragmatic factor,so it is opposite to the traditional concept of knowledge,which is a kind of epistemic purism.However,pragmatic encroachment is a kind of epistemic impurism.Defenders often use the following facts to defend thesis of pragmatic encroachment.The facts are epistemic intuition comes from particular thought experiment,we are used to citing knowledge to justify or criticize our behavior,and we use knowledge as safe reason.Based on these facts,defenders of pragmatic encroachment have developed a kind of theoretic argument,and knowledge-justification link thesis is the essential assumption of this argument.There are many objections to this argument,among which the high stakes objection,the Dutch Book objection,and"the cart/horse objection"are three influential arguments against pragmatic encroachment.Though the debate between defenders and objectors will continue,we point out that defenders of pragmatic encroachment have mistaken the scope of evidence in their thought experiments,in which their epistemic intuition may be right,but their reasoning and conclusion are wrong,so in comparison,epistemic purism is better than impurism.